I really don’t get why people are still banging on about the Lib Dems being in the Coalition. Yeah, they had to drop some policies to do so, but can you imagine what the Tories would be wasting time on if they’d got into power on their own? Cameron wouldn’t even be contemplating marriage equality, he’d be using the Commons time to bring back fox hunting! Just look at the likes of Michael Gove to see what the whole of the Cabinet would be like. Even worse, imagine if the Tories had attempted to govern with the help of the DUP!!

This is unfortunately the best government we could have got from the options available at the time, Lib Dem U-turns and all. We don’t live in a perfect world, and Labour were clearly discredited and in need of some time in opposition to regroup.

So, under the circumstances Nick Clegg and co. should be cut some slack IMO. Things could be much much worse than they are, for us and for pretty much the whole of the UK.

(As a catholic divorce trying to remarry in a catholic cult building).

Religious marriage in a cult building benefits only a very tiny number of people.

Inviting ANY cult into a discussion on equal marriage before we have even achieved civil marriage equality serves no purpose other than to let ALL cults think that they have an input into marriage laws. (Hint: they don’t)

The debate theat Nick Clegg, Nick Herbert, Yvette Cooper and others are seeking is for marriage to be equal (whether relgiious or civil). Now, if you want half hearted equality (because it doesnt affect you personally) and you are happy for others to have to sit on the back seat or choose which water fountain to drink out of – then that is for you to justify – I personally find that approach ignorant and abhorrent.

However, I do find your comments on the tennis story fair and reasonable.

Great to hear that ministers in the coalition are now realising that whilst its not reasonable to force religious organisations to breach their religious convcition by forcing them to marry a couple they feel that is religiously inappropriate for – it is equally unreasonable for those religous organisations to be legally prevented from doing so, if their conviction is that it is the right thing to do.

Nick Herbert made similar statements in the last week or so.

I am hopeful that amendments will be lodged regarding any government bill on equal marriage that will ensure religious freedom for those who wish to secure equal marriage.

Any bill passing through Westminster can have amendments tabled in either the Commons or Lords. Sometimes (as I would hope in this instance) it is a constructive aspect of the parliamentary system that allows democratic accountability and review of proposed legislation. Unfortunately, sometimes it can be done maliciously to delay and prevent legislation happening.

Separate can be perfectly equal. The current official proposal not about equality at all, but about “gay marriage” – a different marriage, rather than access to the same marriage. Unfortunately years of “gay marriage” nonsense rather prepared the way for that, and now we have to correct it.

If you want to sit in a different part of the bus and be segregated but call it equality; If you want to be restricted to drinking from particular water fountains, but call it equality bedcause you can drink; if you want to have the beaches you can relax on be specified and call that segregation equality because you are permitted access to a beach … if you want to call that equality – then that’s your choice. You do not speak for me.

As for Anglican Mainstreams rhetoric that no one will end up getting married – they need to look at the world around them and realise that their worldview is not shared by many and they should not be able to dictate their worldview.

Not exactly news. Nick has been a supporter of equal marriage, including equal religious marriage, since before he was in Government – and it’s been Lib Dem party policy for ages too. But happy to see people raising it.

If the act doesn’t allow religious marriage, then a court case will correct it, but will take at least 3 years, during which discrimination will have continued to hold sway, and religions will continue to have a basis in national law to vilify us. But our politicians are probably planning on it happening that way, so they can claim to have defended religions.

The European Convention allows a government to decide who may marry, but once a government allows us to marry it would become religious discrimination to not allow a religion to marry those the state allows to marry. And religious discrimination is serious.

Chris Sugden is part of the Anglican Mainstream organisation that clearly seek a theocratic UK.

This story is not about their rhetoric – but about achieving real equality and freedom of religion for those organisations seeking to support LGBT people.

Sugdens freedom of religion is not damaged by any proposals from government – his marriage will still exist, he will be able to marry (or not) couples that his religious beliefs allow him to and no one will force him to do anything he doesn’t believe in.

His arguments are fatuous, disjointed, ignorant and demeaning (of himself and others).

We are technically a theocracy. We have a monarch, the head of the state church which is part of the government and allowed to meddle in the political process by sitting in the unelected House of Lords and who get to say who is entitled to marry and who isn’t. I don’t know of any other European monarchy where the monarch is the head of state religion. Either way, I concur with your comments about Canon Sugden. He’s an ignorant, mendacious tosser.

Whether the UK is or is not a theocracy is a debatable point, I certainly wouldnt see it as a true or pure theocracy. However, there is far too much influence in and interference with the democracy of the state by the CoE.

I think perhaps a better word for what I was tryign to say is that Canon Sugden and his supporters seek an ecclesiocracy.

The only arguments debased organisations such as Anglican “Mainstream” have is rhetorical fallacies.

They might like to make them sound true, reasonable or valid points – however, the truth is they have no substance, no basis in fact, no relevance and are mere attempts to divert attention from the facts, reasonableness and integrity of ensuring equality in terms of civil marriage and freedom of religion for those who wish to support LGBT people.

They know their arguments are unreasonable so they hide behind fallacies.

Sure, but in the meantime lets not prevent those religious organisations that wish to exercise their religious freedom to support same sex couples in marriage from being able to do so by making it illegal. Lets enable and encourage them to exercise their religious freedoms.

Let’s hope that once equal marriage is legal, their opposition will hasten their demise and irrelevance. They are completely out of touch with civil laws and rights and should not be allowed to have any input in matters that do not affect them directly. If millions pf people joined the National Secular Society, it’s quite feasible that disestablishment could become a reality. I bet every poll up and down the UK would support such a move.

In the meantime lets not fail to encourage full and meaningful equality in marriage including within those religous organisations that wish to exercise their religious freedom by supporting LGBT people who wish to marry.

That comment was intended to relate to the comment about getting rid of the established church and removing bishops from the second chamber. The real point is that much as we should seek to enable churches to celebrate if te choose, same-sex marriages the same as other marriages, it must be made clear that there is no compulsion intended, now OR IN THE FUTURE, on churches to celebrate same-sex marriages. But the price they may pay longer-term for their bigotry may be, ultimately, the withdrawal of the tax concessions conferred on religious bodies. Freedom carries responsibilities, and if religious bodies choose to discriminate they must ultimately expect consequences.

Freedom of religion is not enhanced by preventing those religious organisations who wish to support LGBT people marrying from doing so.

Freedom of religion is not enhanced by certain religious organisations dictating to other religious groups and society in general how they should deal with issues.

However, as you rightly say, those religious organisations that do seek to dictate should rightly expect consequences – both in terms of loss of support, public perception, dwindling numbers and ultimately possible disestablishment.

I agree with Nick Clegg that religions should be able to marry same sex couples if they wish – it’d be weird to stop them doing so.

However, I still don’t want any mention of that in the initial legislation. I want it to be CIVIL marriage only because I don’t want religions to have the slightest excuse to stick their (largely) lying, mis-informing, prejudiced noses in. I’m SO p*ssed off with all these religious people interfering and spreading cr*p about equal marriage. They should be told “We’re discussing CIVIL marriage – butt out”.

Then when the initial civil legislation is in place, and the sky hasn’t fallen in, of course, amend it to permit religions that choose to do so to also carry out same sex marriages. I think it’d be easier this way. The whole process seems to be taking long enough as far as I’m concerned and I don’t want it slowed down any more than necessary.

Your view is fatally short-sighted; just as was that of those who advocated for civil partnerships back when. Nice for those who want an unequal civil marriage, but no one else.

All these little-step approaches essentially concede the right of others to keep us unequal. The source of that belief in our inequality is religion, and so religion has to be tackled, whilst allowing their adherents rights in their own lives.

Equal marriage, with religions marrying who they believe they can, equally, and the bigot religions revealed for what they are, is the utter bedrock of our being equal people, everywhere, in every thing.

The fact that the bigots oppose that so fiercely demonstrates its necessity.

Those religions deny us marriage because they hate us, and have long used us to boost their power. We have long been their ultimate scapegoats. Marriage is the ultimate test of that, but not everything they wish to deny us.

Once it is determined in national, and then international law, that religions may only control their own, consenting members, even in respect of the ultimate scapegoats, then we shall be free, and so shall many others.

This matter is that important. The current official proposal is a disgraceful surrender to the abusive bigots.

Let’s hope the numbers for equal marriage increase while the those totally against equal marriage fall. I think Nick Clegg is right. As time progresses the negativity towards equal marriage will diminish. The hysteria in the first days of the consultation seems to have peeked. Once the naysayers get wind of France introducing it next year, I think a lot of them will have to resign themselves to the inevitable whether they like it or not. They’re outnumbered. I think the Telegraph and probably the Mail realise that. They can bleat and rant all they want, it’s coming.

Its a pretty filthy trick that the Telegraph splits the pro-reform vote 3 ways, but doesn’t split the anti-LGB vote at all. At this moment, the combined vote for at least civil marriage is a clear 54% majority. The results page should say that.

PinkNews covers religion, politics, entertainment, finance, and community news for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community in the UK and worldwide. Founded to produce broadsheet quality journalism for the LGBT community, we cover politics to theology in an intelligent manner.